View open accounts and their current balances in a YNAB budget, including checking, savings, and credit cards. Pass a budget ID or use the last-used budget.
Lists the open accounts in a budget (checking, savings, credit cards, etc.) with their current balances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget_id | No | The budget ID, or 'last-used' for the most recently used budget. | last-used |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — only *open* accounts are returned, with current balances — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether a default budget is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical examples add clarity without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned ('with their current balances'). It stops short of explaining the budget_id default behavior or how it differs from the very similar sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single budget_id parameter and its 'last-used' default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the budget scoping, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the open accounts in a budget') and enumerates account types, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_all_account_balances', which sounds like an overlapping resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. With a sibling ('list_all_account_balances') that appears to cover a similar purpose, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.